4.4 Article

Is populism a challenge to European energy and climate policy? Empirical evidence across varieties of populism

期刊

JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN PUBLIC POLICY
卷 28, 期 7, 页码 998-1017

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/13501763.2021.1918214

关键词

Climate policy; energy transitions; European Union; populism

资金

  1. Jean-Monnet network `Governing the EU's Climate and Energy Transition in Turbulent Times' (GOVTRAN) ( Erasmus+ programme of the European Union)
  2. Open Access Publication Fund of the University of Salzburg

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found significant differences in the approaches of different types of populist parties towards EU energy and climate policy - right-wing and right-leaning populists tend to oppose ambitious ECP, while left-wing and left-leaning populists demand more ambitious measures. Additionally, government participation reduces the role of populism in parties' ECP discourse and weakens parties' positions and actions.
Despite the burgeoning literature, evidence on how right-wing populists frame and act on energy and climate issues is limited and even more scarce for other types of populist parties. We address this gap by exploring the policy discourses, positions and actions of six European populist parties from Austria, Czechia, Greece, Italy, Poland and Spain belonging to different types of populism. We argue that there is substantial and largely neglected variation among different populist parties in their approach to and effects on EU energy and climate policy (ECP). We find support for the notion that right-wing and right-leaning valence populist parties are at odds with ambitious EU ECP. On the contrary, the analysed left-wing and left-leaning valence populists rely on populist discourses to demand more ambitious ECP measures. Furthermore, our analysis suggests that participation in government decreases the role of populism in parties' ECP discourse and dilutes parties' positions and actions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据